Easier to build around: KD or Jokic?

[letskissbro]

Was thinking about these guys in a team building context.

Which archetype of player is easier to build around: an offensive hub who can't protect the rim at the 5 or a wing scorer who needs to be slotted alongside someone who's a better playmaker than he is? Assume realistic team builds under the salary cap. So no MVP pairings or Warriors/Celtics once in a decade type team constructions.

I'd say a versatile forward is a prerequisite to contend with Jokic while KD needs someone who can shoulder most of the playmaking load and share ball handling duties with. Jokic won a championship against a weaker bracket with a more balanced squad and a medium grade version of his guy in Gordon, while KD came up short with a high end lead guard in Westbrook on a more top-heavy team—although those Thunder teams were good enough to win titles most years.

Another way to think of this might be; would you rather have a team with KD as your best playmaker or a team with Jokic as your best paint defender?

[Statlanta]

I think Durant at his best is a better player than Jokic. He was picked #2 and was consistently improving during his prime despite unfavorable conditions(new franchise in new city, bad coach/college coach, high usage co-stars).

But at the end of the day you build around Jokic. He has better leadership and durability. Both guys make the max but whatever gap you think Durant has over Jokic(if any at all) is made up for all the missing seasons Durant will have. If Jokic has seasons like the bubble I'd take his post prime production over Durant's Nets/Suns stints

[picko]

Jokic is a higher impact player. I think there are also certain intangibles - leadership, unselfishness - that fall in his favour too. Jokic is typically more durable. I also don't think that Jokic's shortcomings, such as rim protections, have been a major reason why some of his teams weren't successful.

With Durant I am obviously getting an incredibly gifted offensive player who can fit in successfully across a wide variety of team set-ups. But I'm also getting a guy who regularly misses games, perhaps lacks leadership qualities, can be overly sensitive and who seems to make trade demands every other season.

[Cavsfansince84]

Somewhat easily Jokic. Maybe.. had KD not gotten injured in 15 and stayed in Okc there would be a case but I don't see it as all that close. All Jokic needs is some decent shooters around him. Even with maybe the worst supporting cast in the entire league he still led a team to 48 wins in 2022 or close to it.

[Ol Roy]

When I think about "building around" someone, it means they either anchor the defense and/or serve as the offensive hub. Durant doesn't really do it for me.

[wafflzgod]

Though I do think there are some drawbacks of your center not being a strong defender, specifically as a rim protector/paint defender while also being slow-footed on the perimeter, I don't view Jokic as too destructive of a defender and closer to a somewhat neutral-ish impact defender. On the other end, I think providing that level of playmaking/scoring/spacing as a center can potentially unlock a ridiculous offensive ceiling because the fact is most star offensive players are guards/wings with centers often being the weakest offensive position. Furthermore, Jokic's offensive game involves a lot of screening/quick passing/movement (plus elite offensive rebounding) that makes him incredibly scalable and versatile, and super easy to build a good offense around. While KD himself is very easy to scale onto high level teams because of the movement/shooting/spacing/play-finishing as well as providing some switchability and solid secondary rim protection on defense, I don't think he is in totality a higher impact player than Jokic.

[KingofTheClay]

KD is kind of a plug and play. He can play alongside mostly anyone. Just get him a point guard.

With Jokic you probably need some good POA defenders to make his job easier at the rim. Also need a vertical spacing threat and/or athletic big that can help protect the rim.

Sure, with Jokic it’s trickier. But it’s not like it is with Luka. With Luka you need good shooters, versatile defenders, and a good rim protector. Thats tough to craft. Basically need some version of the Nuggets:

Jamal Murray - KCP - Luka - AG - Lively/Gafford


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peregrine01]

When I think about "building around" someone, it means they either anchor the defense and/or serve as the offensive hub. Durant doesn't really do it for me.

This about sums it up IMO. KD is a great ancillary piece but not a piece that you can build around to win a championship.

[lessthanjake]

When I think about "building around" someone, it means they either anchor the defense and/or serve as the offensive hub. Durant doesn't really do it for me.

This about sums it up IMO. KD is a great ancillary piece but not a piece that you can build around to win a championship.

Do we consider Durant’s OKC team to have been built around him? Of course those teams didn’t win a championship, but I do think they were good enough to do so and if we reran those years again there’s a decent chance they get one. But I guess maybe those teams were built around Westbrook as much as around Durant? Durant was always their best player though.

[Colbinii]

When I think about "building around" someone, it means they either anchor the defense and/or serve as the offensive hub. Durant doesn't really do it for me.

This about sums it up IMO. KD is a great ancillary piece but not a piece that you can build around to win a championship.

Do we consider Durant’s OKC team to have been built around him?

No, they seem to have built around Westbrooks and his relentless rim pressure.

Of course those teams didn’t win a championship, but I do think they were good enough to do so and if we reran those years again there’s a decent chance they get one. But I guess maybe those teams were built around Westbrook as much as around Durant? Durant was always their best player though.

The best player isn't always the player you build around. Durant is both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser but he isn't really a system. Russell Westbrook is a system. Steph Curry is a system. Steve Nash is a system. LeBron James is a system.

Kevin Durant is very much like Anthony Davis in that regard. Neither are a teams system but both are these incredible weapons that--when put within confides of a system [See Curry and LeBron] they can just ooze impact.

[lessthanjake]

This about sums it up IMO. KD is a great ancillary piece but not a piece that you can build around to win a championship.

Do we consider Durant’s OKC team to have been built around him?

No, they seem to have built around Westbrooks and his relentless rim pressure.

Of course those teams didn’t win a championship, but I do think they were good enough to do so and if we reran those years again there’s a decent chance they get one. But I guess maybe those teams were built around Westbrook as much as around Durant? Durant was always their best player though.

The best player isn't always the player you build around. Durant is both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser but he isn't really a system. Russell Westbrook is a system. Steph Curry is a system. Steve Nash is a system. LeBron James is a system.

Kevin Durant is very much like Anthony Davis in that regard. Neither are a teams system but both are these incredible weapons that--when put within confides of a system [See Curry and LeBron] they can just ooze impact.

I feel like you’re just saying that someone with Durant’s style of play essentially definitionally cannot be considered to have a team “built around” him. Which seems to me like it must be wrong. If someone is the best player on a team and everyone (including the organization itself) understands that and the roster is built with that in mind, then I’d say the team is built around that player. I think the distinction you’re trying to draw is basically to say that a team isn’t “built around” someone unless that player is a primary playmaker. I don’t think that’s right though. For instance, I’d say the Mavs were built around Dirk, the Rockets were built around Hakeem, the Sixers were built around Iverson, etc. There’s different types of superstars, with different strengths, but you do build around your best player and whatever particular skill set he has, even if that skill set isn’t primarily about playmaking for others.

Of course, this is independent of the question of whether building around someone with a particular style of play is easier to do and/or easier to actually be successful with. We may think that Durant’s lack of playmaking makes it harder to build around him effectively. Indeed, my answer to this thread would almost certainly be Jokic and that’d be part of the reason. But I wouldn’t just say Durant categorically can’t actually really have a team built around him in the first place. Whether the Thunder were built around Durant or Westbrook is actually not a super straightforward question IMO, but mostly because Westbrook was a fantastic player as well, so their roster decisions were probably made with both in mind. I’d still lean towards saying the team was more built around Durant, but it’s arguable (hence why I responded to Peregrine with a question).

[Asianiac_24]

I personally think Jokic is a lot better than KD, so Jokic. There are very few players I would take over 22 or 23 Jokic, and KD in any year is not one of them.

[Colbinii]

Do we consider Durant’s OKC team to have been built around him?

No, they seem to have built around Westbrooks and his relentless rim pressure.

Of course those teams didn’t win a championship, but I do think they were good enough to do so and if we reran those years again there’s a decent chance they get one. But I guess maybe those teams were built around Westbrook as much as around Durant? Durant was always their best player though.

The best player isn't always the player you build around. Durant is both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser but he isn't really a system. Russell Westbrook is a system. Steph Curry is a system. Steve Nash is a system. LeBron James is a system.

Kevin Durant is very much like Anthony Davis in that regard. Neither are a teams system but both are these incredible weapons that--when put within confides of a system [See Curry and LeBron] they can just ooze impact.

I feel like you’re just saying that someone with Durant’s style of play essentially definitionally cannot be considered to have a team “built around” him.

Yup, exactly what I am saying.

Which seems to me like it must be wrong. If someone is the best player on a team and everyone (including the organization itself) understands that and the roster is built with that in mind, then I’d say the team is built around that player. I think the distinction you’re trying to draw is basically to say that a team isn’t “built around” someone unless that player is a primary playmaker. I don’t think that’s right though.

This isn't at all what I am saying.

Let's look back on the Thunder with Westbrook and Durant--both of whom were Superstars.

Which of Durant or Westbrook applied more rim pressure and was the better passer/playmaker? Westbrook
Which of Durant and Westbrook are better shooters and provide off-ball gravity? Durant
Who requires more roster considerations when attempting to maximize their respective impacts? Westbrook

With all this in mind, it is obvious the team should be build around Westbrook. Why? Because Westbrook's impact is very much impacted by who he is sharing the court with, the amount of spacing he has and how much pressure he can apply on the rim. When looking at Durant, his impact is relatively linear--whether there is ample spacing or somewhat-limited spacing, his ability to be a tough shot maker, his limits as a playmaker and his incredible mid-range game allows him to maintain his impact through a variety of roster constructions.

Once we are at this point, it is fairly straightforward that you would want to build the team around Westbrook's strengths and weaknesses since building around Durant could hinder Westbrook a considerable amount.

Another point of contention with Durant is his impact seems to be consistent whether he is on a mediocre team or great team. He requires very little in terms of roster considerations compared to Westbrook.

For instance, I’d say the Mavs were built around Dirk,

No doubt. A much better offensive engine than Durant. Dirk dominated in the post, opened up passing lanes for himself and teammates and had incredible gravity on incredible volume while operating out of the high-post and mid-range area.

the Rockets were built around Hakeem,

They put an abundance of shooters around him [compared to other 1990s teams] and spaced out the floor during his height. Durant doesn't operate like Hakeem does offensively though, and let's face it, Hakeem never anchored good offenses. I don't really consider Hakeem to be a high-level offensive centerpiece.

the Sixers were built around Iverson, etc.

Sure, to middling results at best.

Of course, this is independent of the question of whether building around someone with a particular style of play is easier to do and/or easier to actually be successful with. We may think that Durant’s lack of playmaking makes it harder to build around him effectively. Indeed, my answer to this thread would almost certainly be Jokic and that’d be part of the reason. But I wouldn’t just say Durant categorically can’t actually really have a team built around him in the first place. Whether the Thunder were built around Durant or Westbrook is actually not a super straightforward question IMO, but mostly because Westbrook was a fantastic player as well, so their roster decisions were probably made with both in mind. I’d still lean towards saying the team was more built around Durant, but it’s arguable (hence why I responded to Peregrine with a question).

In Summary:

Durant is extremely portable in the sense that his impact is going to be high no matter the roster. Specifically altering and building a championship level roster around him doesn't make as much sense as altering and tinkering the roster around other high-end talents on the roster seems much more valuable in terms of maximizing the team as a whole.

Westbrook is a player where he suffocates the ball to a degree but applies immense rim pressure which then opens up the entire court for the rest of the team. You really want to maximize Westbrook when he is on your team in order to make "the juice worth the squeeze".

Circling back to the question of the thread--I think Durant may be easier to build around in the sense that he automatically fits seamlessly with any player in the NBA. He isn't pidgeon-holed into the Center slot. Durant doesn't require an active Dunker's Spot athlete. Jokic requires less on-ball playmaking next to him but requires high-volume 3P shooters and specifically one who is elite at attacking off the dribble like Murray to maximize the P&R/DHO's. Durant really needs rim protection, needs more playmaking [but can sacrifice some shooting--see the Bruce Brown P&R actions in Brooklyn] and like Jokic needs defensive minded role players.

I think Jokic with a higher-end build around [See 2023/2024 Nuggets with high-end talent in the starting line-up AND good fits 1-4] that you can get more juice out of the roster as a whole than you can with a similarly talented Durant roster.

[SHAQ32]

KD can score from anywhere off the ball and is a good shot blocker. He's clearly more portable and therefore easier to build around.

[cpower]

KD needs an offensive engine.

Jokic needs POA defender...he is much easily to be built around.

[ardee]

I personally think Jokic is a lot better than KD, so Jokic. There are very few players I would take over 22 or 23 Jokic, and KD in any year is not one of them.

Agreed. I think all of '21-'24 Jokic are easily above peak Durant.